Social-Media Companies Threaten Democracy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 авг 2019
- Today, social-media companies like Facebook and Google are the gatekeepers of meaningful freedom of speech. This is problematic, argues the New York Law School Professor Nadine Strossen, because these companies often self-regulate in ways that violate the First Amendment.
Subscribe to The Atlantic on RUclips: bit.ly/subAtlanticYT
Watch more from the Speech Wars series here: ruclips.net/video/dg98Z-UNHjc/видео.html&
Wow the animation
"“The Speech Wars” project is underwritten by the Charles Koch Foundation".
Who at The Atlantic decided it was a good idea?
The animation is really dynamic and unsettling. I love it.
Excellent choice of words. Dynamic and unsettling indeed.
Hypnotic and whimsical. Comforting, yet discomforting. If I may add.
yes it's brilliant
I applaud whomever did the visuals
Unfortunately laws that govern technology are slow to catch up to modernity. When I look at our current polictal climate I don't feel comfortable that our law makers are capable of implementing nuanced policies that are fair and a-political. It's going to get worse before it get's even worse.
Evan Fields There is premise if you consider it as if it was physical property rather than internet. People get caught up on the whole "internet" thing but premise exists. It wouldn't be the first time some rich asshole or church asshole or both tried to control what people could say and couldn't. Usa used to stand up to them rather than pander to them. This is still pandering. Its gone on far too long.
Was with you until you said "apolitical." It's impossible to pass laws that are apolitical. Fair and nuanced? Sure. We have to define fair and nuanced first, but we can't do a damn thing in this world that isn't political, sorry.
That's because the law makers are a bunch of useless old farts that should have long been put into a nursing home, they aren't and can never catch up to date with the speed the world is changing especially in regards to technology. Case in point, just look at the mark zuckerberg senate hearing.
QuitLife People are stupid and shitty. Most lawmakers don't even know the law. Despite that they shut poorer people out of it with ridiculous fees for this and that making it impossible for anyone not one of themselves or sponsored by one of themselves to be involved. It's all a mess.
I don’t think any government should have any control over our speech. Doesn’t matter how well the government is. Free speech is more important now than it ever has been
Damn, incredible animation.
I respectfully disagree. For me this cartoon was a pain to watch, I'd rather just watch Nadine Strossen talk on camera or like anything else.
I too thought it was awful
@@TheAlexN1305 Why was it a pain? I thought it was a beautiful way of expressing the impact of social media, but I'd like to hear your side.
@Emi Kat It is strange to argue esthetics, but it is not an "incredible animation" by any standard. I've seen beautiful animations, mediocre ones and bad ones too. This one is simplistic, weird and kinda ugly to be honest. What I see as incredible animation is "Beyond Aquila Rift", but even something like animation in Kurzgesagt videos is a lot more beautiful than this.
Also it was painful to watch because of how poorly such simple-shapes childish animation fits with serious interview narration of the video. At least for me that was a strikingly annoying mix. But I understand if you have a different perspective.
@Adrian Her name is Ala nunu leszynska :) vimeo.com/alanunu
The animation makes this topic much more scarier and disturbing. And it is.
Social media is not a public utility
If a government permits a monopoly by establishing laws and incentives that are neccesary for the monopoly to exist then how is it not a utility by fiat?
maybe if users have strong political power they will eventually motivate governments to acquire (nicely) or re-appropriate (forcefully) a private property as public property.
It is a public utility. It is like talking to people down the street. And this is the problem with not regulating it. Now, if you think about it, RUclips has all the streets. And they control everything. This is why it should be regulated. (It's a whole other issue that they use every tiny bit of data and make huge bucks from it, without giving you, the data owner, a portion of the profit.)
I need my power and internet service regulated. I couldn't give a fuck what happens on Twitter, Facebook, or even here on RUclips. It's just vapid entertainment.
@@bellavaszilij6868 If you don't like getting a ton of free video content, don't watch. Entitled douche.
MGS2 predicted this during the early 2000's
MGS 2 predicted everything
Sure did. Here's the context:
ruclips.net/video/jIYBod0ge3Y/видео.html
The operative word is, "private sector".
That's right, and people don't have to use it. In addition, these jokers cry to corporations to ban or censor "hate speech," yet have the nerve to act surprised when the censorship turns on them. Unless it's illegal speech, it should't be banned nor censored: how hard is it to understand? Hate speech happens: get thicker skin.
Amazing illustration style! Thank you so much for sharing this.
Love the animation on this, and the message.
This is The Atlantic, a Left-leaning media source. The video is WARNING us about media platforms having a monopoly on the “digital town square.”
Take note of the end of the video:
“If you don’t have free speech, online, on social media, then you don’t have free speech at all, in any meaningful sense.”
Now, certainly, it is quite delightful to cheer for suppression of speech you don’t agree with (in all seriousness, you should’ve outgrown such sophomoric simple mindedness by now), but it’s also quite naive to believe that the mechanisms of suppression won’t get around to also suppressing YOUR point of view.
The monsters we create (or allow to flourish) are very often of the dullard type and will one day eat US, because that’s what monsters do. Suppression of ideas is just another MONSTER that no self-respecting free society will tolerate.
Remember, this is The Atlantic, so if you despise all things “right wing,” it’s still safe for you to consider what this video is telling us.
Remember, when you defend your neighbor’s freedom, you are also defending YOUR OWN FREEDOM. Conversely, when you cheer for the suppression of your neighbor’s freedom, you’re also cheering for the suppression of your own.
You wanna be selfish? Great. Then be selfish: FIGHT FOR YOUR FREEDOM BY DEFENDING YOUR NEIGHBOR’S FREEDOM . . . even if you absolutely hate your neighbor.
Think of the long game. It’s always the long game. Don’t let what feels good right now (shutting down debate) enslave your children and grandchildren.
I'm sorry but in an era where hate speech is the holy Grail of profitable content, I believe this video could have done better than to preach for a "let us all say whatever we want to say and let the archaic justice system we have in place (the same one that allowed for every single injustice perpetrated against minorities in US history) figure out what's good and what's not"
All of those same atrocities almost certainly would still have been committed if the first amendment didn't exist. Arguably, it could have been far worse, as the government would very likely have banned and suppressed all public demonstrations, protests, and airing of grievances during many phases in our history, like the civil rights movement. Even then the government tried to suppress it, but what won in the end? The absolute freedom of expression and speech, which rallied people to their causes and effected major change. A country without the ability for minorities to speak their mind without fear of arrest, violence, or other retribution from the government isn't a good country to live in.
That does necessitate also permitting racist people to say racist things, but I think racist people saying racist things is preferable to racist people being easily able to suppress the ability for marginalized groups to criticize and say whatever they want to criticize and say, suffocating their voices and potentially delaying progress for decades or centuries.
Freedom of speech is a multi-edged sword, but lack of freedom of speech is a spiked cudgel used to beat down and silence those who don't share the views or exact genetic makeup of the majority.
Good point. What could be done?
@@tunnelsloth5948 I kinda understand where you are coming from. And I do agree with you to a degree in the sense of "This could have been way worse". You are right, it could have, and I know this not because I imagine so, but because I lived in a dictatorship for most of my life.
However, your description of freedom of speech as a necessary cover-all blanket that by default (or by its true or purest nature) protects both racist and bigots and minorities is faulty, to say the least.
philosopher Karl Popper stated that as paradoxical as it might seem, a tolerant society should not in any way tolerate intolerance, for it can mean the extinction of tolerance. And this was proven when Carl Schmitt himself confessed that a failure of democracy was that it allowed for the spread of Fascism under the banner of political freedom.
Therefore, yes, freedom allowed for minorities to voice their dissenting opinions but it was freedom TOO what allowed for their oppressors to continue their bigoted way up until today--and if you think that that's just the double edge sword we are bound to carry in order defend ourself, then I'm sorry but may I introduce you to the hammer and sickle?
No, but seriously, restriction of liberties is nothing new: we can't disclose information sensitive to matters of national security (and I know neither you nor I decide what constitute an intelligence threat), we can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded place, we can't open of concealed carry in federal buildings, we can't threaten the wellbeing of the President. And all these where "freedoms" of expressions that got taken away because they sabotaged (and in the case of the "Fire!" example, literally trampled over) the safety of others (mostly of the status quo and the state but that's another $20).
We can and should do better, because history, at some point needs to stop being cyclical, and that point may as well be now. I don't want to depend on the unsubstantiated belief that racist and bigotry is going down and will eventually die; I want to know that we killed it, and that the lives of thousands if not millions weren't affected by people who backtracked when intolerant people used the same language of freedom to justify hate.
@@shoulders-of-giants I don't know. We don't know. But I think that if we outsource the morality of social media to the government (where the FCC is not democratically elected, and burned us in this administration by taking web neutrality away for the sake of big corporations/ and that's not even going into the track record of US morality) we lose control and influence over it. Should the government create laws that curve hate speech and fascist and bigoted ideas, I say yes, hold this tech giants accountable, but let's be honest, that's not going to happen, and I'd rather have an opening to interact with the doings of a company without a middle man, than having that company justify itself with technical legality.
So as controversial as this may see,: that's why I'm torn when it comes to cancel culture, because it can be abused (and that NEEDS TO BE FIXED), but in the other hand, the court of public opinion is the only thing that gives us a threat of control. We shame advertisers, we de-platform hate, we shine a light into RUclips's sparingly used Terms and Services and sometimes we still lose, and that's not because RUclips is "bad", but because RUclips is a business under a capitalist system and it needs to make money, and money just so happens to be made by engagement and engagement just so happens to stem from hateful content. There is no morality under capitalism (not a criticism, just a fact), there is only profit.
Without getting into black and white political territory, much of the bigoted content right here is very well funded by big businesses (and the Koch brother(s) directly or indirectly) while inclusive content has... who? Patreons giving pocket change to some trans women, gay guys and people of color throwing content into the void with the hopes of fishing some sort of movement out of it.
Fixing all this will take time, and trial and error. But we need to stop talking about technicalities. The moment we argue that "technically, he didn't incite hate speech because he called him a 'lipsy queer' and we can trace back the origin of the word as..." we are losing and failing to see where the problem really is.
@@887frodo I believe Popper's famous statements about not tolerating intolerance are commonly misinterpreted and abused, personally. I think it's actually quite dangerous, or at least I think the way many progressives interpret his concept is dangerous. I consider myself a progressive as well; I detest bigotry and intolerance. But the so-called "paradox of tolerance" can be used to justify almost anything you want it to justify.
To some extent it's of course very poignant and true: I believe Popper's original intention was to explain how the rise of Nazism in Germany could've been resisted. And I agree. But the Nazis were far more than merely intolerant or bigoted in their speech. Their speech threatened murder and their actions perpetrated it. Of course violent threats and violent actions can't be tolerated in any society.
There's also the point that you shouldn't tolerate an idea simply by virtue of it existing. For example, Holocaust denial. But not tolerating Holocaust denial is different from outlawing Holocaust denial. I'm Jewish, and while Holocaust denial is certainly awful and dangerous, I think charging people with crimes for denying the Holocaust is even more dangerous, and will almost certainly lead to many more fascists and more anti-Semitism. There's no better way to foment a violent, revolutionary movement than to throw them in prison for talking. You're proving their point and giving them a massive, free recruitment billboard.
There is a gray area here of people, say, with aspirations of establishing some kind of fascist regime but who publicly mask most of their true intentions. This is also where the paradox of tolerance comes into play. This is kind of a case-by-case thing and it's complex, but I think a good rule of thumb is to draw the line when you're quite certain that violence is a possible outcome of something.
I believe we should have a broad range of what we consider *legally* tolerable, even if we simultaneously find much within that sphere atrocious and morally intolerable.
Freedom of speech is a very complex issue, as the professor explains in this video. It's easy to say something like "why isn't the government outlawing Nazis?", but the full situation is a lot more complicated and wrought with potential folly. The EU differs from America on this, and that's okay, but I personally think the free speech absolutism afforded by the first amendment is something America got right and Europe got wrong (though there are definitely lots of other important things Europe got right and America got wrong).
In summary, I'd say that one should try not to assume all free speech advocates are hardcore right-wingers looking for an excuse to say something offensive or hateful. There are proponents of freedom of speech and the first amendment across the political spectrum. The professor in this video is a counter-example, and there are many, many others. (None of this actually touches on the topic of this video, which is how we should consider freedom of speech in the context of monopolistic social media platforms. That's a whole other extremely complex situation. The first amendment doesn't apply there, but the philosophical principles of free expression are still very relevant in this situation. Which is basically what the professor's saying in this video.)
It's a shame this has only a few thousand views after a few days.
I quit social media just because of that
I am not a product i am a free soul
I wish everyone else do the same it's been a month i feel way much better .
I'm all for social media sites regulating what they feel like. As pointed out, they're in the private sector so aren't obligated to give anyone the right to free speech. As someone who's used chat rooms since the mid-90s, when I worked for MSN, I'm well aware of the provider monitoring what can and cannot be said. You'd get kicked off or banned quickly if you violated their terms of service -- same holds for social media providers. As with any service, people can always choose not to use the site if they don't like it.
Helen Stanford Except they censor that there are alternatives too. If you put up a link to minds.com on facebook nobody will see it.
Helen Stanford They don't want you to go elsewhere and play dirty to make sure people think they don't have options.
Yes thank you!!
Well this was dramatic. The first amendment is about the government not making laws to limit speech. Private companies can decide for themselves what they want on their platform. Your ability to be an a-hole still exists, just can't do it on Twitter.
You can't be an a-hole on Twitter? Oh man amazing I'll finally sign up.
She literally said that, almost verbatim. That's not the point of this. I'd recommend rewatching it to glean her actual point.
Yes but, as private companies hold a monopoly on social media, one of the most useful and contemporary tools in the modern age, it's kind of hard to be an asshole with any sort of weight if your biggest outlets are denied to you. You're having power stripped away from you, just as much I'd wager as if the government were in some other way limiting your speech.
Full disclosure, I have no firm opinion on censorship. To me, whichever course of action science determines to be best for curing modern society of diseases such as fascism, racism, or the like is the one I'll stand behind, but I've yet to have damning evidence for either shoved in my face.
Mesmerising
You really need to start looking at these kind of issues from a global perspective. Nice animation though.
I love it. We'll be in touchtone.
Brilliant, brilliant illustration! This should have gazillions more views for the art alone, but the content itself is, of course, a pressing matter. There are those who say they don't care, but everybody should make up their mind as to what they want and expect of powerful social media - then voice it.
Amazing animation
The animations-
Props to the animator!
good video
Social media aren't oxygen. You don't need them. You decide to use them having first agreed to and accepted their terms of service. Additionally, the narrator doesn't explain why when person A attacks person B in a racist manner in platform C, why should the platform C be liable or responsible of monitoring the conversation and limiting what person A can and can't say? If person A were to write a letter to person B and send it via the post office would anybody believe that the postal service has any liability on what person A said? Person B has every freedom to take any legal action against person A but why people think that should be the platform's problem is hard to see.
Freedom of speech doesn't even exist without Freedom of thought.
I would vote a bill to changer this in
I also hate laissez faire capitalism, and the grip that powerful corporations have on our society. Social media is just a small component of that corporate control though. Focusing on only social media misses the larger point. You picked the wrong battle.
While I certainly wouldn't mind bringing capitalism into this discussion, it's still a niche issue that's worthy of a standalone discussion.
A cold causes a cough, but in addition to fluids and rest to cure some cold, you might like some cough drops to soothe that throat.
I got the chill
who's here from the PF topic
Private companies who provide online social networks are under no constraint to guarantee free speech. As it should be. The concepts of common carrier and net neutrality extend to private communications and the technical aspects of delivery (equal bandwidth/speed for all content). Not the nature of publicly available content posted on private online forums. Just as TV networks have full editorial control, Facebook, Twitter, RUclips, and etc. retain the right to censor as they so please, to the same extent that I can invite people to put up signs on my property, but I have the final absolute say on what goes up or down.
Social media company are private companies and have no responsibility respecting the right to free speech. They have their own sets of rules which you agree to when you sign up (you know that thing you didn't take the time to read before pressing the "I agree" button?")
Did you watch the video? They acknowledge this fact. Their argument is that we could regulate social media companies to allow free speech
@@stopmotiontacos A strange argument, given private property rights.
This person is showing their age when they describe social media as something where free speech laws should apply. Social media isn't a public utility, nor is it a public space, no matter how many people are or aren't using it.
Rashad It is. The argument is that they should be regarded as such since they function like a town square etc.
@@AuroraLalune Are town squares publically or privately owned?
Social Media isn't a public utility
Sues Google for censoring LGBT creators
You people are hypocritical, huh
we debated whether a law apply to a specific company, we defend or push that company, but if a users of that company get punished is there a debate prior to punishment? ie: double standard. Why do we tolerate uncivilised lawlessness....
they sometimes implement system at odd with civilised world, like you-tube once used to do Copyright-claim system where claimant can punish defendant first and trial/dispute later... weird.
They are not completely unrestrained, AND HERE’S WHY! The first amendment states "congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or the press." The founders felt that right, to free speech and press, was so important, that they enshrined it in the very first amendment. They also knew that press would be privately owned, because it was at the time, exclusively. This false idea that any social media company, can yank anything at anytime, because it’s a private business,is garbage. When congress members, or other members of government, contact social media companies, and threaten them with finically ruin, unless they censor and/or remove, the speech of their political opponents, and even their opponents profiles from the sites altogether, which equals total censorship, they are certainly violating the first amendment, "they," being congress, and it’s certainly illegal.
Facebook, Twitter, and other social media companies did not decide to remove Trump or other Republican opponents of Democrats, on their own, for any violations to their policies. They did this only when the democrats in congress made it clear that if they didn’t "come up with somethin," and get rid of trump and any future republicans that would be requested, then democrats would tear these companies apart in antitrust hearings. Also, democrats in congress, made it specifically clear that if Mark Zuckerberg didn’t blame trump for what democrats were terming "the insurrection," that he himself would be blamed and stand trial for it. Under such incredible manipulation, of course, every social media company capitulated, immediately. That doesn’t make it right, or legal.
Congress members do not have a right to call a news station, and tell reporters not to run a story, or else their company will be torn apart in antitrust hearings, and they will be personally charged with causing an insurrection. That’s not a private company deciding to remove constant because it violated their policies, or even decimating to remove constant at all, that’s a private company being illegally manipulated and coerced, by congress members, to break the law and severely abrige free speech and the freedom of the press, and there ought to be hell to pay, for the democrats that illegally brought this about.
It’s quite obvious that corporate democrats and many corporatist Republicans, even, didn’t like it that trump, and other candidates on both sides, that weren’t part of the political insider class, could now use social media to get their message out and even win elections, and so now they’ve threatened social media companies that any requested content must come down immediately, and any requested profiles must be removed immediately. That’s completely illegal, that is congress "abridging free speech and freedom of the press," and it must be stopped and those responsible must be accountable both financially and criminally.
But it sure won’t be done with terrible "journalism," like this piece, where a "news," company is dumb or crooked, enough, to put foward the false idea that: yeah, congress can just suppress any statement or news story, at will, whenever it wants to, by threatening antitrust hearings against companies, and then when they cave, in the face of ruin, that’s just private business doin what it wants to!" The hell it is. And if supposed “news,” outlets are dumb and unethical, enough, to buy that, and worse spread that false idea, then they are void of ethics, and need to go the way of the dodo bird.
Let us remember what has been the standard for ethical journalism up till now, the journalists creed that hangs above the Washington press club, which states :
"I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible."
The crooks in congress (and other branches of government as well) are not suppressing free speech and freedom of the press, on social media, with threats, for the "welfare of society." They’re doing it for the same reasons they are doing it to Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, to cover up their horrific crimes against the American people and the world, and to illegally take away our freedoms, that the constitution guarantees.
what the speaker kinda misses entirely is that hate speech too is protected under the first amendment. there is no provision in federal law against "hate speech". hate speech is protected speech and absolutely should be.
The hate speech example is worse than depicted. If you quote hate speech that you object to, a common outcome is that your comment or post will be taken down as "hate speech," as the video mentions, but further, the original source of hate speech will remain posted. Facebook, et al, will write back that the very same post that you were struck for quoting verbatim was reviewed and found not to violate their community standards.
Actually, I'm positively surprised by this video - it was not what I was hoping for. By what I understood, the author is advocating for something like "let the justice decide what messages should or shouldn't be on these huge giant platforms: if it's illegal, take it down, if not, leave it there". And if that's the case I agree with her 100%.
These huge platforms - we are not talking about some niche little social network, we are talking about pretty much the way most people in the west communicate nowadays - and all this control about what gets posted or not, what can be said or not, falls under this body of nonelected individuals without any public accountability, unlike a judge or a congressman.
Basically what can be said on the internet nowadays, is decided by a very small group of people in California.
That small group in California are very concerned with what small groups in Brussels, Washington, Beijing, etc etc will think about what they allow on their platform. To be fair they're in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation, no one should pretend it's easy or according to whims.
@@aluisious They are at the mercy of not their axiomatic values, but the system itself! That big ugly C-word!
It's just cats on IG.
Harry Whaton:
A program for the nose people.
Published by the Committee for the preservation of the chosenites.
New York - 1939 p. 143.
"The Communist Soul is the Soul of )udaism".
Books:
Behind Comunism by Frank L Britton.///The Red Network by Elizabeth Dilling.///The Rulers Of Russia by Denis Fahey.///
This is so true.
Wow this is an incredibly beautiful animation
Yes, as owner of private companies FB, Twitter or YT can have policies of their own choosing but they can not have monopoly. We, as customers should have options regarding social media we want to use. The monopoly must be split up.
To a Socialist Democrat. Censorship is Freedom of Speech.
I'm surprised and happy the Atlantic made a video like this.
It's not that surprising really. Social media is killing print media. The vast majority of people in America get their news/information from social media. Legacy outlets like The Atlantic or the NY Times have been attacking these platforms for a while. This was a good piece and it was on point but we always need to keep in mind the motivations behind stories and realise that they're not always offered with altruism.
@@acetate909 completely agree I just didn't feel supporting a topic such as this was in line with how political everything is. But you do raise an interesting point that it's most likely in self interest as is everything.
Yeahhh we know, it's all about personal agenda
Did no one have free speech before 2003? I can still say whatever I want to people I meet, which is about the only thing most people were ever able to do. If I want to hold a rally and say "the rhombus is an illegal entity," I can do it just the same now as I could 200 years ago.
Insane
Trippy visuals
False information.
Yes...ive got a First Amendment case I'd love to discuss offline with any Civil Rights attorney.
It concerns the rights of survivors of pedophiles and trafficked people.
it is what it is
It's our fault for giving them the monopoly on our speech.
Define our. That consists government, politicians, lobbyists and the general public. In an ideal situation public vote for sound representation. The problem comes in with education, 'miseducation' and feeding the public with bs, misinformation, certain beliefs etc. So at the end, it's a slippery slope. And, sorry to put it down this bluntly, we are fcked.
These are no longer platforms but publishers; they just use our free materials
What a ffn nightmare
"Self-regulation". I chuckled. The freer we are to express ourselves, the tighter we're controlled.
Regulation is not freedom of speech
1:34. "Censorship is an extremely blunt tool, and if we want to prevent them for exercising that vast power in ways that discriminate against certain speakers or certain ideas, we have to use other laws or other tools to constrain that power."
How about:
1) Get thicker skin, and stop tattling to the corporations and giving them a reason to censor?
2) If you're on the receiving end of "hate speech," fire back with your own hate and humor.
3) Stop looking for others to solve your problems when emotional self-control is up to the task.
You cry for intervention, and then have the nerve to be upset when it turns on you?
Why you should the government be involved in the regulations of the private sector companies? Making use of Social Media is your own CHOICE. So yes, if you agree to participate and agreed with the terms and conditions, these companies can decide by themselves what they enrule
Civil duties trump certain freedoms.
not unalienable rights... like speech.
@@sethfish8889 "Unalienable" means nobody can take it away from you. You can choose to give it to a good cause. It's not the same as losing it.
Benedict H yeah I’m not condoning assholes who do nothing but spread fake information and hate online. I do believe in a social contract that you shouldn’t be a dickhead to anyone. I’m solely speaking about companies ability to sensor you on what is looking more and more like a public forum/town square is a slippery slope. Corporations don’t always have the best in mind.
@@sethfish8889 , or religion.
It's a civil duty to protect individual rights and civil liberties as much as possible without annihilating society. Otherwise, your OP sounds like a justification for every authoritarian government ever.
China has a unique system where ratings are generated per individuals and the government controls all this and can deprive a individual certain right according to the government judgement. I'm not in favor of this but what if a rating system is developed per online platforms/individuals as to accuracy, truth? Could something of this bases be developed that allows free speech but has a rating per posts? Something to consider maybe?
Lord have mercy, kekestanis are really self-important idiots aren't they
you can't convert tradition Court system & debates into an Accuracy/Truth rating, it's unfeasible. There's too many new facts.
trials & debates is the only proper way to settle truth.
orange man bad
ORANGE MAN GOOD!
This video will soon be demonetized.
What isn't demonetized these days?
To bad we haven't criminalized the violation of the Bill of Rights. I think we should execute CEOs of companies that violate the rights of citizens on such a massive scale.
You just realised?
so youre trying to tell me this is not the voice of meryl streep?
We have a Republic
Let's not forget traditional media companies like the Atlantic were disrupting democacy long before social media
The Atlantic isn't exactly a prime example for you argument
@@shoulders-of-giants Well that's certainly what they'd like you to think
If you choose to be interested in preventing this, vote for Andrew yang.
Also, to all those people renting about "oh, facebook is a private property, they can do whatever the hell they want..". So it's okay with you if a private company decides to not serve minorities? It's the same principle. Unless your answer is also "yes", you're being contradictory, you're basically saying "companies can do whatever the hell they want.... when I agree with what they are doing".
Now, whether we're talking about some company denying service to a given group of people or not allowing a given set of opinions on their platform, I think in both cases, smaller companies should be able to do that, should have much more leeway. If you have a little cake shop and you don't want to serve black people or Mexicans, or even white people, you should have this right because it's a small company, you denying service to that person won't have thaat much of an impact on his life, they can just go to the next store on the other side of the street. The same goes if you have some small niche social platform, you decide who posts there or not.
But, as soon as your company starts to get bigger and start becoming these huge corporations, I think you start to lose this right of denying service to people. The same way I don't think Wallmart shouldn't have the right to deny service to gay people, I don't think Facebook should be allowed to deny services to conservatives, or anyone if that matter.
Do you have any *objective* reasoning to assert that when a company gets big, you're entitled to anything at all?
@@gabrielrabelo6982 I would also be interested in hearing their rationale for such supremacism.
This narrator is annoying.
The animation makes up for it...sorta
"The gatekeepers of meaningful freedom of speech" is 4chan. In 100 years people will realize how important the site is, not because of its vulgar content but because anonymity and free speech are very hard to find on other websites
Yeah...no.
@@mashamitchell9574 you'll realize it soon enough
You should voice any of your concerns regarding anything from moral values to general policies, frankly before anyone. If you want anonymity,, that means you are afraid of someone, something, your own voice, not sure about yourself, so that is a negative issue. Even if you feel you can't stand out besides your thoughts, anonymity is something we must scrap from our dictionary. You can practice free speech, use your name duo315.
@@bellavaszilij6868 I have nothing to hide, not in a RUclips comment section, anyway.
*FREE SPEECH*
*DOES NOT INCLUDE*
*DISCRIMINATION*
Yes it does. If I say I don't want to date a person because of their gender, that does not fall into any exception to the first amendment.
These are no longer platforms but publishers; they just use our free material